Via Flight Global.
This new guy over at that house (Flight Global) is a breath of fresh air. Balanced reporting on the F-35 instead of slanted news from the likes of Aviation Week, Ft Worth Star (Bob Cox), and the APA brotherhood. When he tells me there is bad news with the airplane my reaction will be ok, how do we fix it instead of, what kind of nonsense are they trying to push on me now?
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta strongly endorsed US Marine Corps aviation and voiced his continued support for the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35B jump-jet and Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft on 17 May.
"Marine air is what we need for the future," Panetta told a crowd of marines during a commemoration ceremony marking a century of USMC aviation. He praised the USMC's air arm for its flexibility and adaptability."There is no force in the world that can match the Marine Corps' ability to conduct agile and flexible expeditionary operations," he says.Moreover, the USMC can conduct those operations on short notice and with overwhelming force.
It is because of those reasons that the USMC needs the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B version of the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter, Panetta says. He notes that earlier in the year he cleared the variant from "probation" because the once-troubled F-35B is "meeting requirements.""The Marines need a fifth-generation fighter for the future, and they will have it," Panetta declares.The secretary also praised the MV-22 tilt-rotor. The tilt-rotor affords the USMC agility and flexibility, he says.
Dave Majumdar:
I just sang your praises but you have to do me a favor. CAPITALIZE the word Marine! A perfect article except for that little fact..I'm the last person to play grammar NAZI but that's a tidbit I can't let slide!.
Again, Marines do not need a fixed-wing air arm. They can rely on the Navy and Air Force for fixed-wing air support.
ReplyDeleteFill the spots meant for the B with attack helos and drones. Much, much more flexibility and adaptability, plus higher sortie rates. The B is a white elephant, but no one wants to admit it.
If that little weasel Panetta is in favor of those planes, it seems to indicate there are some good behind-close-doors reasons to keep these aircraft around.
ReplyDeletePolitically, it'd be way to easy to get rid of one or both. The president's base would love it.
well said Anonymous.
ReplyDeletethe President's base would go crazy with approval. the idea that these programs are being kept around is somewhat ominous. it tells me that intelligence is saying that what we have isn't going to cut it in that mythical war against China....maybe its a numbers thing....i don't know but for THIS president to keep this going is saying something.
The F-35 isn't optional. The USAF and USMC both bet the future of tactical aviation on the F-35. Neither has bought any significant amount of fighters in over a decade.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comment on the Corp giving up it's fighters the USN would then of course go back to having some number of land based squadrons to support the Corp. Of course Marines would operate with the unit in various roles. What effectively is the difference if a land based squadron(s) trained and equipped to support the Corp under the Dept of the Navy is manned by Navy or USMC? This is exactly why there is Marine aviation.
Helicopters can be quite useful but they are not a substitute for fixed wing support. Indeed attack helicopters are very vulnerable. See the Battle of Karbala where one engagement put a US Army AH-64 regiment out of action for a month. The attack helicopter was actually invented by the US Army in response to the USAF not being overly interested in close support and being denied the use of armed fixed wing aircraft themselves.
Marine aviation flying in direct support of fellow Marines on the ground works very well. Marines have traditionally given excellent close air support from WWII through Korea to the present day. Frankly we'd be better off taking the A-10's away from the USAF, along with the budget, and having the Corp lead a joint force to support every service. While that's not going to happen the Corp is downsizing and will be flying fewer fighters, eventually getting to an all F-35 force. Frankly, the nation is better served with some F-35's flown my Marines and whatever number we require taking them away from the Corp and having someone else fly them is not going to save any money. Indeed it would cost the nation more money as the USAF spends a lot more than any other service per person.
Let's try to inject some facts into the conversation:
ReplyDelete1. Taking the F-35B off the LHAs means that an ENTIRE CBG has to follow the LHAs around to provide support. This would increase lifetime costs of the CBG and decrease the response times to flareups.
2. LHAs often operate from areas where there is simply no timely USAF option. Places like the East/West/South coasts of Africa and South America, Vast amounts of the Pacific, Atlantic & Indian oceans, etc.
3. Fixed wing UCAVs cannot operate of an LHA. What will is too small for any combat worth.
4. Helo-support is too slow, especially if the battle is far inland. This also means that sortie rate is too low.
5. Helos cannot carry anything bigger than a Hellfire missile. No LGBs, no JDAMS, no SDBs, no AShMs, etc.
1. LHAs can be protected by destroyers and cruisers. No need for fixed-wing air cover.
Delete2. Again, destroyers and cruisers can provide cover. Any operation likely to encounter a significant hostile air threat will be supported by a CBG.
3. Ski-jump ramp. It is ridiculous that the US Navy does not have them fitted on the big deck amphibs.
4. Operate closer to shore and the faster helos in development will solve that issue.
5. UAVs can carry heaver ordnance if it is required, but tough to imagine a closer air support situation that would require it.
1 & 2. Providing cover for the LHAs are not what the F-35B is for. Their purpose is to provide fast and heavyweight CAS for the Marines on the ground.
Delete3. Ski-jumps would take up too much room topside on the LHA. This would lower the overall sortie rate, not only for F-35Bs, but also for helos and V-22s. This would also lower the amount of aircraft the LHA could carry.
4. Sorry, but no Helo is going to regularly carry anything heavier than a Hellfire and will NEVER go anywhere near as fast as an F-35. Operating too close to shore also puts the LHA at increased risk of AShMs, MLRS, swarm attacks, etc.
5. Heavy UAVs cannot operate from the small deck of a LHA. Certainly not a Predator or Reaper class UAV.
1&2 Not what they are meant for but sure is nice to have when the bad guys miss the memo that they aren't supposed to attack the boats. Fast and heavy are great. When I need CAS I need all I can get and usually I need it ten minutes ago.
Delete3 Agree. You need all the grunts off in as few lifts as possible then launch the fighters. Those decks are crowded enough when the BLT is leaving.
4. See #1 above. 1000lb'ers in 7 minutes beat Hellfires in 15 every day all day long.
5. The Corps should concentrate on cheap light UAV's at the Battalion level and below. Let the Air FOrce have the big expensive ones.
Of course I always rode the LCAC's in.